SynthesisPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Multipoint Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultipoint pacing (MPP) delivers sequential stimuli from multiple left-ventricular electrodes, potentially improving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response versus conventional biventricular pacing (BiV). We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize contemporary evidence.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 (PROSPERO CRD420261293273), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched to January 2026 for comparative studies of MPP versus conventional BiV in adults receiving CRT. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included echocardiographic response, NYHA class improvement, and absolute change in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Random-effects models produced pooled odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD).
resultsEight studies (n = 2430; 1190 MPP, 1240 BiV), including five randomized and three observational studies, were analyzed. All-cause mortality showed no significant difference between groups (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.76-2.80; p = 0.25; I
conclusionsCompared with conventional CRT, MPP was associated with improved functional and echocardiographic outcomes and reduced HF hospitalization, without a demonstrated mortality benefit. Larger prospective studies with longer follow-up are required to assess long-term prognostic effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.